민사집행법 제286조 제5항에 근거하여 채무자가 보전명령에 대하여 이의를 제기한 경우 채권자가 추가로 담보를 제공하는 것을 조건으로 보전명령을 인가하는 재판례가 자주 있다. 이 글에서는 독일과 일본의 논의를 참조하여 위와 같은 결정이 있는 경우 채권자가 담보를 제공하고 이를 집행기관에 증명하는 방법, 채권자가 조건을 준수하지 아니한 경우의 효과, 채무자가 채권자의 조건미준수 시 선택할 수 있는 구제방법 등에 관하여 살펴보았다. 위와 같은 결정은 추가담보제공조건부로 보전명령을 인가한 것이므로 變更決定의 일종이다. 법원이 담보제공조건부로 보전명령을 인가한다는 의미는 채권자가 裁定期間 내에 담보를 제공한 경우에 한하여 보전명령의 효력을 존속시킨다는 것이다. 따라서 담보의 미제공은 보전명령의 효력을 소멸시키는 해제조건이다. 법원이 담보제공조건부로 보전명령을 인가하였으나 채권자가 담보를 제공하지 아니한 경우, 독일의 학설과 판례는 채무자는 ‘執行方法에 관한 異議’를 제기하여 권리를 구제받을 수 있다는 입장을 취하고 있다. 일본에서는 1970년 이전에는 ’執行에 관한 異議’나 ‘事情變更에 의한 保全命令의 取消’ 모두 가능 하다는 것이 통설이었으나, 1970년 이후에는 사정변경을 이유로 한 보전명령의 취소만이 가능하다는 견해가 등장하였다. 그러나 1991년부터 시행된 民事保全法은 채무자의 부담을 경감하고 신속하게 채무자를 해방시킬 수 있는 ‘保全執行의 取消’라는 간이한 제도를 제44조에서 신설하여 위와 같은 문제를 입법적으로 해결하였다. 위와 같은 결정에 대하여 채권자가 裁定期間 내에 담보를 제공하였다는 것을 증명하지 아니하면 보전명령의 효력은 상실되므로, 효력이 상실된 보전명령에 기하여 보전집행을 유지하는 것은 위법하게 된다. 따라서 조건부인가결정정본은 민사집행법 제49조 제1호 소정의 ‘집행처분의 취소를 명한 취지를 적은 재판의 정본’에 해당하므로, 채무자는 집행기관에 위 정본을 제출하여 집행의 취소(해제)를 구할 수 있고, 만약 집행기관이 집행취소를 거부하는 경우 민사집행법 제16조에 의하여 집행에 관한 이의를 제기할 수 있다고 보아야 한다. 한편, 채권자의 담보미제공으로 보전명령의 효력이 상실된 이상, 채무자는 더 이상 보전명령의 취소를 구할 이익이 없다. 다만, 가처분명령의 취소와 동시에 원상회복재판이 필요한 경우(민사집행법 제308조), 집행이 이루어지지 아니한 보전명령 등의 경우에는 채무자는 집행에 관한 이의에 의하여 구제받을 수 없으므로, 예외적으로 사정변경에 의한 보전명령의 취소가 허용된다고 보아야 한다.

In the objection case against a preservative order(a provisional seizure order or a provisional disposition order of the article 300(1) of the Civil Execution Act), the court sometimes makes the order which approves the original order on condition that the obligee supplies additional guaranty for the obligor on the ground of the article 286(5) of the Civil Execution Act. The purpose of this study is designed to discuss the method of the proof of obligee’s supplying additional guaranty to the court of execution or an execution officer, the effect of obligee’s non-performance of supplying additional guaranty, and the remedy for the failure of fulfillment of condition. Such order is one of the order of alteration, because the court approves the preservative order on condition that the obligee supplies additional guaranty. The meaning of the order of alteration is that the validity of preservative order continues only if the obligee supplies additional guaranty within the period. Unless the obligee supplies additional guaranty within the period, the validity of a preservative order goes extinct. In Germany, unless the obligee supplies additional guaranty within the period, the obligor can be protected by the method of the objection against execution on the ground of the article 766 of the Civil Procedure Code. In Japan, the obligor can be protected by the method of the objection against execution or the revocation of a preservative order due to changes in circumstances until 1970. Between 1971 and 1990, the obligor can be protected by the method of the revocation of a preservative order due to changes in circumstances. But the article 44 of the Civil Preservative Measures Act declares that the obligor could be protected by the method of the revocation of a preservative execution from 1991. As the failure of supplying additional guaranty makes the validity of a preservative order extinct, sustaining the preservative execution is illegal on it. The exemplification of such order is one of the exemplification of ordering a revocation of the execution disposition on the article 49(a) of the Civil Execution Act. In result, the obligor may file a request for the revocation of a preservative execution by submitting the exemplification of such order. If the court of execution or an execution officer reject the revocation, the obligor may file an objection against execution on the article 16 of the Civil Execution Act. But the revocation of a preservative order due to changes in circumstances on the article 288 or 301 of the Civil Execution Act could not be accepted because of the defect of standing.

In the objection case against a preservative order(a provisional seizure order or a provisional disposition order of the article 300(1) of the Civil Execution Act), the court sometimes makes the order which approves the original order on condition that the obligee supplies additional guaranty for the obligor on the ground of the article 286(5) of the Civil Execution Act. The purpose of this study is designed to discuss the method of the proof of obligee’s supplying additional guaranty to the court of execution or an execution officer, the effect of obligee’s non-performance of supplying additional guaranty, and the remedy for the failure of fulfillment of condition. Such order is one of the order of alteration, because the court approves the preservative order on condition that the obligee supplies additional guaranty. The meaning of the order of alteration is that the validity of preservative order continues only if the obligee supplies additional guaranty within the period. Unless the obligee supplies additional guaranty within the period, the validity of a preservative order goes extinct. In Germany, unless the obligee supplies additional guaranty within the period, the obligor can be protected by the method of the objection against execution on the ground of the article 766 of the Civil Procedure Code. In Japan, the obligor can be protected by the method of the objection against execution or the revocation of a preservative order due to changes in circumstances until 1970. Between 1971 and 1990, the obligor can be protected by the method of the revocation of a preservative order due to changes in circumstances. But the article 44 of the Civil Preservative Measures Act declares that the obligor could be protected by the method of the revocation of a preservative execution from 1991. As the failure of supplying additional guaranty makes the validity of a preservative order extinct, sustaining the preservative execution is illegal on it. The exemplification of such order is one of the exemplification of ordering a revocation of the execution disposition on the article 49(a) of the Civil Execution Act. In result, the obligor may file a request for the revocation of a preservative execution by submitting the exemplification of such order. If the court of execution or an execution officer reject the revocation, the obligor may file an objection against execution on the article 16 of the Civil Execution Act. But the revocation of a preservative order due to changes in circumstances on the article 288 or 301 of the Civil Execution Act could not be accepted because of the defect of standing.

a preservative order, the order which approves the original order on condition that the obligee supplies additional guaranty for the obligor, the revocation of a preservative execution, the Civil Execution Act, an objection against execution, the revocation of a preservative order due to changes in circumstances